1. Title, director and release year?
The Corporation
Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbott
2003
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This movie focuses on the development of the corporate world and how it has evolved into the unstoppable and irresponsible force that it is today. It discusses the history of the corporations, how they began in the 1700’s, what they did throughout history, and how they were seen, and how it became the stronghold of business, economics and politics today. This film lays out the destructive and powerful nature of the corporations and the people that hide behind them.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The corporate structure in America, which affects the world, touches on each of the sustainability issues, as showed in the film. The political and legal issues of corporations are outrageously out of control. They have the rights of an individual, however, they are not held responsible for their actions as an individual, and as a company, and they can just use money to solve their problems. This was told in the movie as having no soul and no body.
Since corporations have so much power and money, this affects the media, information and education. This is how the corporations affect the public, giving them certain information and holding other information from them, which changes their views on these corporations, not allowing the public to make their own opinion based on true information. This allows the corporations to continue their reign, destroying the environment, corrupting politics, controlling the economy, and manipulating the public.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
- The idea that corporations have individual rights in the eyes of the law o This is ludicrous that companies have rights just as people do, they shouldn’t have the rights that an individual does because they are not acting as an individual: they want more money, more wealth, more power, and for their corporations to be as large as possible. They hold no interest for the environment or the public.
- The comparison that a corporation is like a shark o Both a shark and a corporation are designed to achieve one thing o The corporations are not interested in the well-being of anything or anyone else but themselves and their corporations
- Nike calculates and keeps track down to fractions of a second how long it takes to manufacture each of their products o Looking at the document that had how long it took to make the zipper and put on the button and sew on the label… etc. This means that factory workers are tracked by the fraction of a second to do their job and they get paid one-tenth of what Nike charges for the profit
- The corporations have no regard for human or animal health, social morals, or just any morals at all o They believe that any cow that is not injected with hormones is considered lost revenue o A company that made Agent Orange produces chemicals to be injected into livestock § Who thought that this would be a good idea? o IBM printed some of the papers that were used to document the victims that were taken in to the concentration camps at the Holocaust o Coke made Fanta so that they could have a soda in Nazi Germany without getting a bad name o These companies that have such a bad history should have been forced out of business, not allowed to do such immoral things and make so much money
- The news channel not being able to run their clip on the health issues o The news should be impartial and should serve the public for the factual information for their health and safety o When corporations get involved, they have their own concerns (money, power) and aren’t concerned with what is right for the public to know o Falsifying news is not against the law o This makes me question what to actually believe on the news? To take the cynical/conspiracy view, how do we know that anything on the news is factual and what are they really hiding from us?
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I didn’t find the part where the factory owner freaked out on camera especially convincing. It didn’t really describe why and it was understood that he was hiding something, but I think they could have used that time for more convincing information instead of a factory owner trying to hide something. It’s speculative what he was hiding, and more concrete information would have been more beneficial.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
- I want to know more about how corporations can be stopped, how they can go out of business and what can be done, in politics or from the community o Would it make a difference to do simple things, like never buy Fanta or Coke for that matter?
- What can politics do to stop these corporations? Could it ever be possible since the politicians are usually so intertwined with the corporations o For example, how Dick Cheney was an executive in Halliburton, a huge oil company, and then we invaded controversially invaded Iraq potentially for oil. This is a huge conflict of interest between politics and corporations, especially since Halliburton publically gave Cheney millions after he became VP and had to leave the company
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film really addresses the public. It shows the public how much we are really being owned by the corporations in every aspect. They are so powerful and have so much money that they can reach to basically every aspect of our life and make decisions for us, like what we watch on the news. Hopefully viewers take this and realize that something needs to be done, because right now the public is being owned by companies and it’s making it more difficult for us to make our own decisions without somehow being influenced by a corporation along the way.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film discusses how when the public supports corporations, it’s just putting the local shops out of business. By not supporting the huge corporations, it could help relieve problems like cheap international labor, which opens up many problems, from energy consumption to poor living conditions and keeping the poorer countries poor. This could be changed by individuals supporting companies and stores that have social morals and consider the public and environment when making decisions.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
This film talked about the fines that companies were getting because they violated certain laws, but it would have been more educational if they went into detail about it. For example, why did they get the fines, how many times, what else were they fined for, and the real question, why aren’t they being fined more, so that it is a substantial punishment instead of something that the corporation could just write off.
The Corporation
Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbott
2003
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This movie focuses on the development of the corporate world and how it has evolved into the unstoppable and irresponsible force that it is today. It discusses the history of the corporations, how they began in the 1700’s, what they did throughout history, and how they were seen, and how it became the stronghold of business, economics and politics today. This film lays out the destructive and powerful nature of the corporations and the people that hide behind them.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The corporate structure in America, which affects the world, touches on each of the sustainability issues, as showed in the film. The political and legal issues of corporations are outrageously out of control. They have the rights of an individual, however, they are not held responsible for their actions as an individual, and as a company, and they can just use money to solve their problems. This was told in the movie as having no soul and no body.
Since corporations have so much power and money, this affects the media, information and education. This is how the corporations affect the public, giving them certain information and holding other information from them, which changes their views on these corporations, not allowing the public to make their own opinion based on true information. This allows the corporations to continue their reign, destroying the environment, corrupting politics, controlling the economy, and manipulating the public.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
- The idea that corporations have individual rights in the eyes of the law
o This is ludicrous that companies have rights just as people do, they shouldn’t have the rights that an individual does because they are not acting as an individual: they want more money, more wealth, more power, and for their corporations to be as large as possible. They hold no interest for the environment or the public.
- The comparison that a corporation is like a shark
o Both a shark and a corporation are designed to achieve one thing
o The corporations are not interested in the well-being of anything or anyone else but themselves and their corporations
- Nike calculates and keeps track down to fractions of a second how long it takes to manufacture each of their products
o Looking at the document that had how long it took to make the zipper and put on the button and sew on the label… etc. This means that factory workers are tracked by the fraction of a second to do their job and they get paid one-tenth of what Nike charges for the profit
- The corporations have no regard for human or animal health, social morals, or just any morals at all
o They believe that any cow that is not injected with hormones is considered lost revenue
o A company that made Agent Orange produces chemicals to be injected into livestock
§ Who thought that this would be a good idea?
o IBM printed some of the papers that were used to document the victims that were taken in to the concentration camps at the Holocaust
o Coke made Fanta so that they could have a soda in Nazi Germany without getting a bad name
o These companies that have such a bad history should have been forced out of business, not allowed to do such immoral things and make so much money
- The news channel not being able to run their clip on the health issues
o The news should be impartial and should serve the public for the factual information for their health and safety
o When corporations get involved, they have their own concerns (money, power) and aren’t concerned with what is right for the public to know
o Falsifying news is not against the law
o This makes me question what to actually believe on the news? To take the cynical/conspiracy view, how do we know that anything on the news is factual and what are they really hiding from us?
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I didn’t find the part where the factory owner freaked out on camera especially convincing. It didn’t really describe why and it was understood that he was hiding something, but I think they could have used that time for more convincing information instead of a factory owner trying to hide something. It’s speculative what he was hiding, and more concrete information would have been more beneficial.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
- I want to know more about how corporations can be stopped, how they can go out of business and what can be done, in politics or from the community
o Would it make a difference to do simple things, like never buy Fanta or Coke for that matter?
- What can politics do to stop these corporations? Could it ever be possible since the politicians are usually so intertwined with the corporations
o For example, how Dick Cheney was an executive in Halliburton, a huge oil company, and then we invaded controversially invaded Iraq potentially for oil. This is a huge conflict of interest between politics and corporations, especially since Halliburton publically gave Cheney millions after he became VP and had to leave the company
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film really addresses the public. It shows the public how much we are really being owned by the corporations in every aspect. They are so powerful and have so much money that they can reach to basically every aspect of our life and make decisions for us, like what we watch on the news. Hopefully viewers take this and realize that something needs to be done, because right now the public is being owned by companies and it’s making it more difficult for us to make our own decisions without somehow being influenced by a corporation along the way.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film discusses how when the public supports corporations, it’s just putting the local shops out of business. By not supporting the huge corporations, it could help relieve problems like cheap international labor, which opens up many problems, from energy consumption to poor living conditions and keeping the poorer countries poor. This could be changed by individuals supporting companies and stores that have social morals and consider the public and environment when making decisions.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
This film talked about the fines that companies were getting because they violated certain laws, but it would have been more educational if they went into detail about it. For example, why did they get the fines, how many times, what else were they fined for, and the real question, why aren’t they being fined more, so that it is a substantial punishment instead of something that the corporation could just write off.